Oscar Index: They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

What a week at Movieline's Institute for the Advanced Study of Kudos Forensics, where the pundits' hustle harmonized with the guilds' bustle to create a heavy-duty wake-up call for some otherwise dormant awards-season underdogs. They also telegraphed danger for a few juggernauts once thought unassailable. What does it all mean as we head into the Critics Choice and Golden Globe Awards weekend? To the Index!

The Leading 10:
1. The Artist
2. The Descendants
3. Midnight in Paris
4. The Help
5. Hugo
6. War Horse
7. Moneyball
8. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
9. The Tree of Life
10. Bridesmaids

Outsiders:The Ides of March; Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy; Drive

The awards race always begins to feel a little more real around this time every year, when the New York Film Critics Circle and National Board of Review officially hand out their hardware, the guilds weigh in with their reliably precursory nominations, and the black-ops Oscar mercenaries hired to cut the competitions' throats are finally turned loose by their monied studio masters. No such barbarism will be necessary, apparently, for the foes of War Horse, which the Directors Guild, Writers Guild, American Society of Cinematographers and Art Directors Guild -- all containing valuable membership overlap with the Academy -- each ignored in their respective nomination announcements over the last week.

It was the bitchslap heard 'round Hollywood -- or at least around the awards punditocracy, where experts hastened to digest what on Earth happened to the mighty-turned-slight-y Steven Spielberg epic. "My own oft-repeated view is fact that anyone with a smidgen of taste or perspective knew from the get-go that Spielberg's film didn't have the internals that would make it go all the way," wrote Jeffrey Wells. Sasha Stone posed a related theory: "All of the Oscar bluster around it was self-generated inside the bubble movie writers inhabit. As the presumed defacto frontrunner there was simply no way it could win -- the hype destroys even the best of films." Steve Pond was sanguine-ish: "The film is still a likely Oscar nominee, but it would no longer seem as much of a surprise if Spielberg himself was overlooked by the Academy's Directors Branch."

I would characterize both movies as “down but not out” — with a grim reminder that that’s usually exactly what one says just before, “Okay, they’re out.” I’ve been saying from the beginning that passion rather than consensus will power Terrence Malick’s movie toward a Best Picture nomination, but the fact that it went 0-for-3 with the writers, directors, and producers is not encouraging. I can offer a series of valid rationales — writing was always a long shot, the DGA’s large votership of rank-and-filers is generally inhospitable to art films, and the producers just don’t get it. Still, the hill it has to climb is getting awfully steep. War Horse at least managed to score a Producers Guild nomination.

Fair enough. But understanding the first law of Oscar thermodynamics -- that energy can be neither created nor destroyed but merely transferred to the campaign of a more palatable movie -- as we do, it was hardly surprising to witness the rapid ascent of such guild favorites as The Descendants, Midnight in Paris and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

The latter pair in particular enjoyed excellent showings this week, with Dragon Tattoo going four-for-four with the aforementioned guilds (too bad it can't carry the momentum into Thursday's Critics Choice Movie Awards and Sunday's Golden Globes, both of which largely overlooked the thriller) and Midnight in Paris drawing at least one persuasive argument that it would not only contend on Oscar night, but in fact has a terrific chance to win. Invoking Annie Hall, The Silence of the Lambs, Gladiator, and other erstwhile Best Picture winners that bucked the convention of a fall release date, Gold Derby's Tom Brueggemann went way in depth to explain why Woody Allen's May flower may come up smelling like a rose next month. A sample:

None of these films was the obvious winner when they were released. Each had to withstand competition from highly touted late-year entries to prevail under the old "most votes wins" system. Under this method of counting, Midnight in Paris, Hugo and The Artist might split the votes. Each is a period piece centered on creative types in the 1920s and 30s; these somewhat stylized yet smart entertainments appeal to older members. However, under preferential voting, the chances of one of these three winning increases with the one most likely to prevail having the most top-of-the-list support and fewest detractors -- i.e., Midnight in Paris.

There's a lot more worthy reading where that came from; Brueggemann's piece is easily the most sensible, thought-provoking awards analysis I've read all week.

Anyway, speaking of The Artist, all the guild recognition and forthcoming Hollywood love this weekend couldn't stop some commentators to from sniffing a backlash. No sooner did Tom O'Neil and Rotten Tomatoes editor Matt Atchity surmise that a fade might be near than The Guardian's Joe Utichi spotlighted the silent film's thriving subculture of foes. "[A]s the road to the Oscars winds ever on," he wrote, "it seems this year's awards favorite, The Artist, isn't immune to a spirited blogger backlash that sounds ever louder as the film's five-star reviews continue to decorate its myriad campaign ads."

And then there was Kim Novak Rapegate, the most tastelessly, transparently obvious smear job since someone delivered the L.A. Timesmass quantities of weak ammo against The Hurt Locker two years ago. "Today, actress Kim Novak -- a noted recluse so out of the Hollywood loop that I doubt most people under 50 know her name -- took a full page ad in Variety," wrote Roger Friedman, citing Novak's instantly infamous "protest" that The Artist's brief use of music from Vertigo had "violated" her "body of work." Friedman, himself a noted Harvey Weinstein ally/mouthpiece, continued in the front-runner's defense: "It’s hard to believe that Novak was so motivated by The Artist soundtrack -– so full of original melodies and inventive work–that she called up Variety and read them a credit card number."

Who's behind it? Who knows? However, for those keeping score at home, you'll note that this would mark the second time in as many months that the subject of rape has entered this year's awards conversation; previously, David Fincher alleged that Dragon Tattoo contained "too much anal rape" to merit Oscar consideration, which we're finding now is not the case. And Dragon Tattoo producer Scott Rudin essentially hates Weinstein, so... Coincidence? You'll have plenty of time to think it over while I apply a few bottles of Purell.

Thanks for playing last week, Tate Taylor! The prognosis of the upstart Help director -- whose Oscar hopes went from meteoric to crater-rific within about 60 seconds of the DGA nominations announcement -- received perhaps the best read from Mark Harris:

[F]ilmmakers who get DGA nominations but not Oscar nominations tend to have won DGA hearts with crowd-pleasing studio films: Gary Ross for Seabiscuit, James L. Brooks for As Good As It Gets, Frank Darabont for The Green Mile. Between them, Cameron Crowe, Christopher Nolan, and Rob Reiner have eight DGA nominations -— and zero Best Director Oscar nominations. By contrast, here’s a partial list of the directors who, over the last 15 years, failed to score with the DGA but were nominated for Oscars anyway: Stephen Daldry, Paul Greengrass, Mike Leigh, Pedro Almodovar, Fernando Meirelles, Atom Egoyan, David Lynch. Populists and hitmakers need not apply; even when Clint Eastwood pulled off this feat, it was for Letters From Iwo Jima.

This would seem to be very bad news for Tate Taylor -- a prototypical DGA nominee if ever there was one[.]

The thing is, Harris wrote that in the context of assessing Fincher and Allen's Oscar chances, particularly vis-à-vis those of Spielberg. Oh, yeah -- that guy. Remember him? The slumping titan who epitomizes Michael Cieply's terrific estimation of how 2011-12 "could be remembered less for its winners than for a large array of high-profile contenders who will be struggling — right up until the Oscar nominations are announced later this month — to avoid embarrassment"? Personally, I can't envision Spielberg shut out of this category; guilds are helpful precursors, but they tend to have biases that the Academy doesn't share. (To wit, noted Scott Feinberg: "My hunch is that the DGA's demographics worked in [Fincher's] favor, in the sense that the majority of the DGA's roughly 13,500 members primarily work not in film but in TV, the medium in which Fincher first made his name by shooting some extraordinary commercials and music videos.") But again, it's just objectively true that multiple precursors can add up to one collective impact for better or worse. This is either the time for Spielberg's faction in the Academy to commence rallying or for everyone to just resolve to wait for Lincoln later this year. Or maybe DreamWorks buys a really, really big table this weekend at the Beverly Hilton and the HFPA whips War Horse back to a sprint. We'll find out soon enough.

If a rising tide indeed lifts all boats, then Mara and even Close -- whose film finally made someofficial Oscar headway in the Makeup category -- are finding themselves resting a little higher this week. But it hardly matters in light of what's happening at the tippy-top of the Index, where Streep and Davis are riding their respective waves virtually hand-in-hand. Take their appearances at this week's NY Film Critics Circle Awards gala, where Davis actually presented Streep with the organization's Best Actress honors: "It’s a testament to her that she’d do this in this year, which is her year," Streep acknowledged in her acceptance speech. Streep's acceptance speech! Thank God we can proceed with class in at least one category here.

Well, class and complete and utter confusion, anyway. "[T]here will be questions regarding this race until Oscar Sunday," wrote Gregory Ellwood -- accurately.

Dujardin has always been vulnerable here, but never more than this week: Despite a swell showing of his own at Monday's NYFCC Awards, it was Pitt who took home the evening's Best Actor prize. Then last night George Clooney walked off with the hardware at the National Board of Review fete. Yet both Americans remain the continuing focus of respectful if not gaga Oscar speculation -- their films are not the ones where even the animals have awards-season devotees; they're not the front-runners being targeted in suspicious drive-by smears (though I guess just wait until Harvey dusts off Art Howe for another fusillade of thwacks at the veracity of Moneyball). And, looking elsewhere, they're not the ones attempting to move the needle with insights into their challenging work (e.g Fassbender) or finding sustained, timely pockets of support from around the awards commentariat (e.g. Shannon and DiCaprio).

Whatever. What I'm trying to say is that unsettled years are always notoriously hard on the Hollywood establishment (Adrien Brody over Jack Nicholson and Nicolas Cage in 2003 comes to mind, and let's not even get started on Roberto Benigni in 1999), and there's no real evidence to indicate that 2012 will turn out any differently. Yet.

If you thought Chastain was in every screen product over the seven or eight months, wait until you see her prolific TV appearances for early 2012. She's everywhere! The only downside is for the film's chances in this category; if she and Spencer cancel each other out, then you could easily see any of the contenders sneak in for first. Back to Gregory Ellwood for the lowdown:

The double Help nods put the entire field in play. Multiple nominations have happened 12 times since 1980 in this category alone, but a winner between the two has only occurred four times (Melissa Leo for The Fighter, Jessica Lange for Tootsie, Dianne Wiest for Bullets Over Broadway and Catherine Zeta-Jones for Chicago,). And if Spencer doesn't win? Well, if McCarthy makes the cut she might be halfway to EGOT in less than a year (never say never people). Or, more likely, Bejo pulls off a Roberto Benigni and gives The Artist an unexpected acting honor.

Gah, not that name again. Anyway, Spencer and her "frisky energy" are a hit on the talk-show circuit! Consider it handled.

“I know the pressure’s on,” Brooks said early in the evening, standing in a crush of people at the Manhattan club Crimson. “But I’m up for it.” [...]

Whether it’s any sort of prediction of what the rest of the year will bring, it really doesn’t matter. As Brooks said, happily clutching his prize, “This is not the People’s Choice. This is the real thing.”

Comments

1) Your analysis' are spot on. You're too witty for your own good!
2) Bummed to see Charlize so low on your chart. Surprised to see Mara above Close given the whole narrative Close has been leaning on to garner her a 6th nomination. I noticed Theron isn't campaigning much. I thought she was brilliant in Young Adult but it's going to be a hard sell considering how uptight the Academy tends to be ha... maybe that's not the right word... safe? All I know is that she deserves to be nominated.
3) Chastain seems to have the edge on Spencer. I would really like to see her win.
4) Do the Critics Choice nominations have any bearing on Oscar noms?

1. Thank you, Reed!
2. Theron's imminent oversight will suck, but I think Mara's likely nomination will kinda make up for it in at least a cosmic-Oscar-justice sense. You're right about the narrative that Close is leaning on, except that she's really leaning on it. If that movie or her performance had any less mojo right now, it'd be rolling backwards. Into a swamp.
3. Me too! It could happen, or they could split it and then you'll see someone like Bejo sneak in. It's anybody's game!
4. They are, in fact, a historically sound precursor to the Oscar noms. We address that a bit here.

Thanks for answering my question! I don't think Mara will make up for it though because I thought she was good, but I thought Noomi Rapace was brilliant and since she wasn't nominated, I don't see why Mara is getting all this heat. Still holding out hope for Theron and Dunst/Olsen (those are longshots, I know but I'm hoping the Academy decides to really change things up! One can dream...)

I hear you, but it's apples and oranges. One's a successful foreign-language film released by a small distributor with no awards budget, the other is an even more successful English-language film released by a major studio and with everyone from David Fincher to Scott Rudin singing the star's praises. That's just part of conversation reflected in the Index.

I'd love Dunst to be nominated almost more than anything, but it's just not gonna happen. They got too late a start on her campaign and the competition's just too stiff. Another time!

Nice to see Rooney Mara has gained some ground. War Horse is still the only major Best Picture possibility I haven't seen, and I can't help but wonder if the Academy feels the same trepidation toward it that I do. As in we all kind of know what we're going to get. So maybe the lack of enthusiasm isn't such a big surprise.

Ultimately the War Horse consensus appears to be that it's minor Spielberg -- which it is and it isn't: The screenwriting and acting and general mood of the thing is not what I'd call inspired. But in pure filmmaking terms, parts of it are as accomplished as anything the guy's ever made. Unfortunately the Academy has long shown a preference for schmaltz over skill, and by both letting it down spiritually and failing to even win the guilds' hearts on the artistic front, Spielberg will have to settle for Oscar also-ran at best. But! Like I said! There is always Lincoln.

About Best Supporting Actor: I'd pick Kenneth Branagh over Plummer in Beginners. I guess it was just me, but I thought Beginners was very uneven in tone -- it felt like every character was acting in a different movie. I was disappointed.

Whereas with My Week with Marilyn, I thought Branagh nailed it as Olivier. And how perfect for him (the Olivier heir apparent) to play Olivier. I swear sometimes he looked exactly like Olivier. It was uncanny.

I (maybe?) like this movie more than the critics. It's one of those compact jewel movies, nicely structured, and Michelle Williams did such a beautiful job. It was a fairytale, but there are more than a few scenes from that movie that have stayed with me. Dark and light.

And on a very separate note, S.T., I recently saw "THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON'T THEY?" based on your frequent enthusiastic endorsements. My god. That is not a movie someone should watch in the current economy. That is one brutal movie.

I couldn't agree with you more regarding both Beginners and Marilyn. We can't go conflating quality and "Oscar-worthiness," though, since the two have never necessarily co-existed as awards-season properties. It's basically who's "due," who "wants it," and who's gonna pay for it.

I wish I could take credit for recommending TSHDT?, but I've actually never seen it! I couldn't endorse it if I wanted to, but consider yourself having just persuaded me to have a look. Brutal = bliss.

Hi Stu, another stellar breakdown, I'm totally addicted. I think you've switched Nick and Kenneth in your leading 5 list though. Keep up the great work and I consider Uggie worthy of a lifetime achievement Oscar by now.

Yeah, I agree. It's not like the guy wasn't out there showing his face or talking about the film, either. I think it's just an all-around ball-drop for the producers and Paramount; Oswalt, Theron, and the whole creative team should been in the conversation since Day 1.

@Winchester- I don't think Paramount even did much for Theron and Cody. So Oswalt was like their 35th priority. It's pretty sad, I agree. I think they expected Theron to surge ahead based on her goodwill and her stature within the industry but they might have forgotten that Young Adult is a tough sell, no matter how accomplished and stellar the performances are. It's frustrating seeing how they spent all this time and money on Hugo and Tintin. Look at Harvey, he has Michelle Williams at every event and throws dinners and luncheons in her honor every day of the week! Haha. Paramount should have had Theron and Oswalt out there... campaigning like crazy. They deserve to be nominated.

Streep should be the frontrunner based on her media storm (Kennedy, Golden Bear, 60 Minutes, Vogue, Newsweek)..Her film is getting major box office in the few theatres it is playing indicating a box office bonanza when it goes wide up to the Oscars. Don't penalize Streep just because she was gracious enough to say it is Davis' year (she is just a nice person). In reality, it's Streep's year and she is expected to win Critics Choice and Globe Drama to cement her as the one to beat come Oscar night.

Thanks, Mark. The Oscar Index has loooong had Streep as the frontrunner due in part to exactly the conditions you mention (see here and here, to cite but a few examples). I didn't mean to suggest that Streep is literally conceding anything to Davis, but the fact remains that among Academy voters, The Help is a more respected movie than Iron Lady (with a longer tail as well), Davis's character is more sympathetic than Margaret Thatcher (which apparently matters around the Academy water cooler), and it's Davis -- not Streep -- talking Oscar with George Clooney in this week's EW. We'll see about tonight's awards and the Globes on Sunday, but as of this writing -- perception-wise, anyway -- they're dead even.

Not entirely pleased with where some of this is heading (you know what I mean), but I can't fault your analysis.

Btw, what the hell was up w/ that Ron Paul/Darth Vader comment thread? I feel like I'm flashing back to 2008. Am I going to have to stay off the internet until the election is over to avoid that crowd?

You two are wicked awesome. Winchester's right though, they're like the killers in slasher films. At the end of the movie when you, me and Jamie Lee think we've finally ended their reign of terror, bam!

I hate how tight the Best Actor race is. Leo, who is in the Exact same position as Streep (great performance in a mediocre film), is getting squeezed out of a nomination while Streep remains a frontrunner. Crazy. But, Oldman absolutely deserves a nomination as well!
And don't even get me started on Michael Shannon, who gave the best performance of the year in my opinion (I haven't seen Shame or A Better Life). Can we just give this category 7 nominations and 2 winners this year?

I think Streep will get it with her graciousness and the fact that it's been almost 30 years since her last win. Personally, I want Charlize in the category, because she was brilliant and I the Michelle Williams should win the award, because she is so good in so many films and she took my breath away.

[...] Golden Globe acceptance speech last weekend. But is her skin-baring the key to getting that coveted Oscar nomination? Behold the press-shy Williams with a pseudo-Marilyn bedroom coif, selling sex with the vulnerable [...]

It seems to me that this web site doesnt download in a Motorola Droid. Are other people getting the exact same issue? I like this website and dont want to have to skip it any time Im away from my computer.